Virginia Caldwell-Grant v. Nancy Berryhill , 691 F. App'x 353 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAY 18 2017
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    VIRGINIA ANN CALDWELL-GRANT,                     No.   15-16919
    Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01902-SPL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
    Commissioner of Social Security,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 16, 2017**
    Before: D.W. NELSON, TROTT, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Virginia Caldwell-Grant appeals from the district court’s decision affirming
    the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental
    security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and we affirm. See Ghanim v.
    Colvin, 
    763 F.3d 1154
    , 1159 (9th Cir. 2014).
    The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err in finding, at step five of
    the sequential evaluation process, that Caldwell-Grant had transferable work skills.
    The parties agree that at the time of the ALJ’s decision, Caldwell-Grant was
    limited to light work and was of advanced age with a high school education, and
    therefore would be considered not disabled under the Medical-Vocational
    Guidelines, or “grids,” if she had transferable skills. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt.
    P, App. 2, 202-06 & 202.07. The vocational expert’s testimony satisfied the
    Commissioner’s burden of establishing specific work skills—stock checking,
    merchandise cataloging, and inventory marking—that Caldwell-Grant had acquired
    from her past semi-skilled work as a stock clerk. See Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec.
    Admin., 
    807 F.3d 996
    , 1002 (9th Cir. 2015); Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
    
    554 F.3d 1219
    , 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2009). These transferable skills enable
    Caldwell-Grant to perform jobs as an order filler, layaway clerk, and
    lost-and-found clerk. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding
    that Caldwell-Grant’s skills were transferable to a significant range of semi-skilled
    work that she could perform, given her age, education, work experience, and
    residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, 202.00(c)
    2
    (providing that work skills must be readily transferable to a significant range of
    jobs); cf. Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 
    468 F.3d 1111
    , 1117 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding
    that transferability of skills to only one occupation was insufficient). We therefore
    affirm the district court’s judgment.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-16919

Citation Numbers: 691 F. App'x 353

Filed Date: 5/18/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023